On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:22:35 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except >> that a glorified version of ELIZA can fool some of the people some of the >> time. >> > > If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be > "doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in > the first place"? > > Has there ever been a robust set of standards? I was under the impression > the TT had been left in a very generic form. Nothing wrong with that on its > own, but normally in science I would have said that while major > propositions tend to start out in uber generic form, what happens - > historically speaking - at least in terms of those histories that converge > on an eventual 'realization' are cumulative additions of further levels of > detail, more or less proportionate with how near to the 'realization' event > things get. > > Note: the original high level uber-generic proposition is never replaced > or deleted. What happens is more akin to the emergence of multiple > underlying hierarchies of increasing levels of detail, which in turn > correspond directly to the manner of 'realization' being progressively > converged upon. > > The same, incidently, is true of the 'universal principles' - again those > that proved to be most valueable (most of which relate one way or another > to energy). > > One of my personal reasons for being interested in the > computing/information situation, despite finding large amounts of where > things are at the moment disagreeable, is because of a more general > interest in precisely this, more generic matter of...I suppose.....if > any...I suppose.....patterns or common characteristics are shared by the > 'universal principles'....not limited to what are usually regarded as the > UP's, but also the 'propositions' such as the TT would be one. > > One of interesting features of the computing/information 'line' is that > the sorts of transformations (from high level generic forms into > hierarchical forms) I speak of have been notably absent. > > cutting a long waffle short, then, am I wrong about this? Concluding, > then, by returning to what I said at the start (which directly linked to > what you said in your post): is there an explicit robust framework for TT? > Else, what sense 'watered down'? > > much obliged 2 ya. >
p.s. "related one way or another to energy" was perhaps ill-stated or involved jumping ahead of what is conventional concept-usage. Perhaps better said would be, 'related one way or another to the character in [not necessarily in the primary sense] 'physical ' law, of 'conserving-ness' (e.g. symmetry...as in, from a certain perspective, knowing one side is enough to know the other, or one side is the mirror of the other along some axis, etc) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
